Planning board recommends rezoning 4.81-acre parcel on NC 87 from RA to RM; 5-1 vote

The Rockingham County Planning Board on March 10 recommended that the Board of Commissioners approve a rezoning request to change a 4.81-acre parcel on NC Highway 87 from Residential Agricultural (RA) to Residential Mixed (RM), voting 5-1 in favor.

The request, made on behalf of property owner James Lemons, would allow housing types not permitted in RA — including two-family, three-family and four-family attached dwellings and townhomes — though it does not permit apartment-style multifamily buildings. Paul Cochran, planning staff, told the board that "in the residential mixed district, single family detached is allowed. 2 family detached is allowed, as are 3 and 4 family detached. True multifamily apartment style homes are not allowed in residential mix." Cochran also said that with sewer and water available, RM permits a higher theoretical density: "mathematically, with water and sewer and residential mixed, you can have 6 dwelling units per acre." For the 4.81-acre parcel he said that yields a mathematical maximum near 24 units but that real-world constraints "never" reach the mathematical maximum because of roads, open space and topography.

The parcel (tax PIN 797803437687) is located near Eaton outside of the town's extraterritorial jurisdiction and lies in the county comprehensive plan's G1 transect, which generally favors agricultural uses but allows consideration of residential mixed at rural crossroads. Cochran said staff found the rezoning "reasonable and consistent" with the comprehensive plan and recommended approval. He also noted that Dan River water is available in the area and that Eden sewer service "might be" available or coming, which is a practical requirement for the higher-density development the RM district permits.

One neighbor, Donnie Sayers of 11168 NC 87 South, spoke in opposition during the public-comment portion. Sayers said he lives across the street and that the neighborhood includes many children and long-term residents. "I just don't want to see any low income property or multi housing going on right there," he said, adding that he was worried about potential changes to property values and neighborhood character.

Board members discussed local housing trends and recent state legislation addressing local authority over downzoning. The chair noted the recent General Assembly action restricting local downzoning and said the board had been following proposed repeals. Several board members described the housing trend toward duplexes and townhomes in the county and nearby municipalities; one member said those units often attract retirees or professionals and that similar developments in the area have sold at relatively high prices.

After discussion, a motion to recommend approval was made and seconded on the basis of the consistency and reasonableness statements in the planning packet. The board voted 5 to 1 to recommend approval. The chair reminded the applicant that the planning board's action is advisory; the Board of Commissioners will consider the rezoning at a later date and that members of the public may speak at that hearing.

The applicant at the meeting was represented earlier by Greg Garrett, who also appeared to notify the board that a separate zoning map amendment case (2025-03) had been withdrawn by its owner due to sewer and annexation issues.

Action on this item now moves to the Board of Commissioners for a final decision; the planning board's recommendation will be part of the record presented to commissioners.